|
Stabilis -> RE: What if a Primary Weapon Had Cooldown? (3/20/2012 16:23:46)
|
Cons:
Strength has a less frequent damage output
May render a player disabled
Strength has more uncertainty
Pros:
Aspires to a current issue (Strength exploitation)
Balances all weapons, all relenting to a form of cooldown
Asserts tactile thinking with limits to exploiting offense
Addressing Posts:
quote:
If it had, there could be turns where you couldn't do anythig (specificaly while being a low level)
True, a Primary weapon is a requirement to enter a battle, at any time where it could not be used would mean that there is a possibility in which a player will be completely unable to perform any actions. Since this would be a universal issue for everyone, I would like to suggest a feature to go along with this theory. As there is a chance that all players may not be able to perform on the conditions that all weapons are cooling down plus skills are unavailable, I suggest the mechanic of exiting the timer with turn passing. If no moves are ever available, the player's turn is skipped, comparable to stun. This is in effect for all players. I would suggest this because it does nothing, it would not imbalance the game in anyway including rage as no attack is performed, but neither defence. The action would therefor be neutral, which is fine. And implement a pass turn button (not a surrender button).
quote:
If strike had cooldowns, then the strength stat would lose a LOT of value. You would essentially be killing strength builds, and a lot of low leveled players will get bored with the game.
As we do change something infinite to finite, there is very much value lost. I would not say that I intend or applicably kill the Strength stat, as the damage remains the same, but the ability to use Strike changes. Strength possesses 2 weapons to note, a Primary and Sidearm, whereas Support and Focus have but 1 weapon of choice. You may think low levelled players would get bored, but missing a turn does not change the gameplay negatively or positively as long as both players have an equal opportunity to miss a turn.
quote:
Some of my skills are used with primary. So how would it work?
Oh, I see my documentation error, what I should have said was if Strike had a cooldown. So because of the difference as skills between Strike and some skill such as Intimidate, they would not share the same cooldown, therefor Strike does not affect melee skills, so you would still be able to use those skills.
quote:
And maybe Energy cost to Strike? It's an attack that can miss, and of course depends on Str but you're not just trying to destroy Str-abusers but every other build. Gun and Aux has cooldown as they are unblockable, why should Strike have one too? Sometimes even that can kill for low-Str build, as last-chance attack and if it was in 'cooldown' it'd be purely not fair, useless and pointless. c:
Strike should have a cooldown because if not considering blocking, Strikes deal 4 times more damage than an Auxiliary even though Auxiliaries have the same stat progressions. Because of the cooldown, Auxiliaries are limited in being exploited, allowing tactics to unfold in between shots. For Strikes it can be 4 Strikes in a row and dealing more damage. I would find that imbalanced when considering 2 offensive stats that should be equally weighted but somehow there is a huge gap because of a difference in manifolds. If anything, Strikes should have the same cooldown as Support and have equal damage at equal stat levels. In doing this, Support would be stripped of some of it's chance attributes such as critical strike. About relying on Strike to win a battle... if a player ever relied on 1 attack alone to defeat their enemy, that would be ignorant of variety, although they are free to design themselves as they see fit. What if one only relied on Auxiliaries to defeat the enemy? If the person would have won with an Auxiliary shot but it was in cooldown, I find the power imbalance or strategy at fault, not the layout of the available skills. That can be freely controlled.
|
|
|
|
